The reasons for analyzing human wildlife conflict in the Doro !Nawas Conservancy:

•To better understand the extent , characteristics and details of Human-Wildlife conflict in the conservancy.•To plan suitable responses at a conservancy level, taking into account the different types of conflict, the costs

of these conflicts , the species involved and the geographical locations.

ABOVE - Figure 1: Number of incidents of livestock loss from HWC in the MCA-supported conservancies for the five-year period 2006-2010. The conservancies are sorted in ascending average number of incidents. ABOVE - Figure 2: Number of incidents of infrastructure damage from HWC in the MCA-supported conservancies for

the five-year period 2006-2010. The conservancies are sorted in ascending average number of incidents.

The Doro !Nawas conservancy has a high rate of human-wildlife conflict incidents, especially infrastructure damage by elephants and stock losses to predators. This is

partly because of the presence of the Aba-Huab river and catchment and the conservancy’s proximity to the Goantagab River.. There is a lot of elephant movement

through the conservancy and much broken and remote terrain for predators. The above two graphs highlight the number of incidents of livestock loss to predators in Doro !Nawas (above left) and the second the loss of infrastructure due to elephants (above

right), both compared to the other MCA-Namibia supported conservancies.

DistributionDistribution

Presentation and Analysis of DataPresentation and Analysis of Data

The distribution and frequency of HWC incidents are mapped in Figure 7. These incidents are broken out by species or category of HWC in Figure

8. The maps show that particular areas and homesteads carry a far greater burden of HWC costs than others. By focusing improvement

measures on these sites, assistance will be provided to those members

of the conservancy carrying the greatest conservancy costs.

Some general observations can be made from these maps: predation occurs throughout the inhabited

areas of the conservancy, particularly predation from Cheetah and Jackal.

Elephant incidents are restricted more to the eastern parts, in close

association with the Aba-Huab River and its tributaries and the Goantagab

River. A number of locations experienced particularly high

incidents of HWC. The areas around Bankfontein pos 1 & 2, Morewag and

an areas some 6 km NE of Moresin reported particularly high livestock losses. The Dagbreek area and area

about 4 km E of Bloemhof pos experienced particularly high

number of incidents from elephants.

Figure 7: Distribution of all HWC incidents within the Doro !Nawas conservancy.

Table 1: The five most seriously impacted conservancies for each of the four HWC categories as well as total HWC, based on per capita costs; the worst benefit to cost ration and the conservancies with the best potential to improve the cost-benefit ratio by means of project intervention. The conservancies that appear in more than one column are colour coded.

Position (score)

Garden & crop damage

Livestock lossInfrastructure

damageHuman attack

Total HWC damage

Worst benefit to cost ratio

Best intervention for C:B ratio

1 (5)

Kwandu Sanitatas ≠Khoadi //HoasUibasen

TwyfelfonteinSanitatas Sheya Uushona Mashi

2 (4)

Balyerwa Marienfluss Sorris Sorris Impalila Marienfluss Sorris Sorris ≠Khoadi //Hoas

3 (3)

Mashi Orupembe Doro !Nawas Marienfluss Orupembe King Nehale Sesfontein

4 (2)

Impalila Puros Impalila Sikunga Puros Sanitatas Doro !Nawas

5 (1)

Mayuni Doro !NawasUibasen

TwyfelfonteinKwandu Doro !Nawas Ehirovipuka Marienfluss

ABOVE: Photograph of a HWC page in the Event Book of a ranger at the Doro !Nawas Conservancy

Table 3: Average cost (N$) of different types of Human-Wildlife ConflictHWC Impact Cost (N$) Explanatory notes on costHuman life 5,000 This is not a value on human life but only the cost of funeral benefits provided.

Infrastructure damage

Pipes 1,500 Per incident, being the estimated average cost of new infrastructure / equipment, transport, travel and installation.

Taps 1,500 Per incident, being the estimated average cost of equipment, transport, travel and installation.

Tank 4,000 For 5,000 litre tank. Includes purchase, transport and installation.Pump 40,000 Includes Lister diesel engine, pump, transport and installation.Windmill 90,000 Includes purchase, transport and installation.

Actual water loss 150 Per tank of 5,000 litres, calculated at pumping rate of 2,000 litres water per hour, 6 litres diesel per hour at N$10 per litre.

Cost to livelihood as a result of losing water

6,100 Per 30 days of impact on livestock condition and reproduction, assuming a 5% value loss to stock over this period; and assuming an average livestock holding of 40 goats, 10 sheep, 5 cows and 4 donkeys per household; with an average of 4 households per water point.

Fence 350 Per incident, being the estimated average for replacement of material, transport and repair time.

Garden 500 Per incident, being an estimate of average value of vegetables lost and opportunity costs including travel and health impacts.

Homestead 3,500 Per incident, being an estimate of average cost of replacement of material and rebuilding time and labour.

Local value of domestic stock

Cow 4,000

Cost of replacing lost livestockHorse 1,500Goat 600Donkey 500Sheep 450

Figure 5: Average HWC cost (N$) to farmers per year, and the maximum and minimum annual costs, caused by different species of wildlife in the Doro !Nawas Conservancy from 2007 to 2010.

Figure 6: Average annual livestock loss (N$) from predation in the Doro !Nawas Conservancy from 2007 to 2010.

Table 2: Summary of HWC in the Doro !Nawas Conservancy from January 2007 to December 2010

Total HWC incidents and costs over four years

No. / ValueAverage HWC incidents and costs per year

No. / Value

Total number of infrastructure incidents

164 Average no. of infrastructure incidents

41

Total cost (N$) of infrastructure incidents

N$402,400Average cost (N$) of infrastructure incidents

N$100,600

Total number of all HWC incidents

903Average no. of all HWC incidents

226

Total number of livestock lost 1057 Average no. of livestock lost 264

Total cost (N$) of livestock lost

N$795,300 Average cost (N$) of livestock lost

N$198,825

Total costs (N$) of all HWC over 4 years

N$1,197,700 Average cost (N$) of all HWC per year

N$299,425

The above data were analyzed in two ways:(i) number of incidents of (a) infrastructure damage (mainly water related, but also fencing, gardens and homesteads), and (b) predation, per species and per

year; and

(ii) cost of incidents from both infrastructure damage and predation, per species and per year.

Costs of infrastructure damage were based on average replacement costs and cost to people’s livelihoods, while predation costs were based on the current average value of livestock in the region. These costs are

summarized in tabled 3 above.

There is great year-to-year variation in the overall amount and types of HWC incidents (Figure 3). * Damage to infrastructure by elephants was greatest in 2007 and 2008 with 72 and 77 incidents respectively, costing

N$268,000 and N$116,000 (the difference in cost is relates to the type of damage caused), dropping dramatically in 2009 and 2010 to just 7 and 8 incidents respectively. By contrast, livestock predation doubled from 2007/08 to 2009/10 from 137 & 122

incidents to 262 and 218 incidents respectively.

An “incident” of livestock predation / killing may involve the killing of more than one animal, as illustrated in Table 4 above. The ratio in incidents to livestock losses also varied between predators as you can see in Table 5.

- Elephants

Incidents of livestock predation

Great year-to-year variation emerged between the costs of different types of HWC (Figure 4). In some years (e.g. 2007) infrastructure damage to water installations by elephants were 48 times greater than

in other years (e.g. 2010). The annual differences in the cost of stock losses were less dramatic, but nonetheless had a 2.5 times difference between the lowest (2007) and the worst (2009) years.

The average cost to farmers per year in the Doro !Nawas Conservancy caused by the different wildlife species and calculated over the 4 years is shown in Figure 5. Also shown are the highest and lowest costs for a year. The maximum cost caused by most species is about 30 - 50% greater than the average, except

for Elephant, where it is almost 160% greater.

The greatest stock loss experienced on average by farmers was that of predation on goats (Figure 6). The average loss was almost N$120,000 per year. The next greatest loss was predation on cows (less than half the goat loss at just under

N$50,000 per year).

Photo Above: Identifying areas with Conservancy Game Guards in the Doro !Nawas Conservancy that experience significant HWC for planning of site visits.

Figure 9: Number of incidents of HWC per year caused by different wildlife species in the Doro !Nawas conservancy (bar graph) from 2002 to 2010 and the linear trends per species, using the number of incidents in

2002 as the intercept (i.e. baseline) figure.

Due to large variations in results from year to year in order to track real Due to large variations in results from year to year in order to track real change one must look at the long term change one must look at the long term trends. A reduction in HWC in one . A reduction in HWC in one

year does not necessarily mean a definite change, as we can see from year does not necessarily mean a definite change, as we can see from 2008. However if overall trends show a reduction in HWC then we can 2008. However if overall trends show a reduction in HWC then we can

ascertain that a genuine change has taken place. This is what MCA-ascertain that a genuine change has taken place. This is what MCA-Namibia and the CDSS consortium, together with the Conservancies and Namibia and the CDSS consortium, together with the Conservancies and

Ministry of Environment are aiming to achieve. Ministry of Environment are aiming to achieve.

Long Term TrendsLong Term Trends

Table 4: Number livestock lost per incident reported per domestic stock type

StockNo.

incidentsNo. stock

lost

Average no. stock per incident

Range (min-max)

Cow 41 47 1.15 1-3Donkey 60 61 1.02 1-2Goat 502 777 1.55 1-13Horse 13 14 1.08 1-2Sheep 122 158 1.30 1-4Table 5: Number livestock lost per incident reported per predator & elephant

PredatorNo.

incidentsNo. stock lost

Average no. stock per incident

Range (min-max)

Baboon 28 59 2.11 1 - 13Caracal 44 54 1.22 1 - 4Cheetah 198 316 1.60 1 - 9Elephant 7 11 1.57 1 - 4Hyaena 49 51 1.04 1 - 2Jackal 369 515 1.40 1 - 10Leopard 43 51 1.19 1 - 5

Figure 8 (right): Distribution of HWC per category and species of wildlife

Poster prepared by Jessica K. Brown & CJ Brown.

The information for this poster came from CJ Brown (October 2011). An analysis of Human Wildlife Conflict in the Doro !Nawas Conservancy for the period 2007 to 2010.

Namibia Nature Foundation for the CDSS, Windhoek.